GNU bug report logs - #55231
[PATCH v1] initrd: Allow extra search paths with ‘initrd-extra-module-paths’

Previous Next

Full log

Message #86 received at 55231 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ian Eure <ian <at> retrospec.tv>
To: Morgan Arnold via "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System
 distribution." <guix-devel <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Morgan Arnold <morgan.arnold <at> proton.me>,
 Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>, 55231 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>
Subject: Re: Understanding #:substitutable? and #55231
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2025 17:06:49 -0800

Hi Morgan,

Morgan Arnold via "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System 
distribution." <guix-devel <at> gnu.org> writes:

> Hello,
>
> If the issue is simply that the patch has not been rebased 
> against a
> new enough version of Guix to be merged, I am happy to do that
> rebasing. Additionally, please correct me if I have made any 
> incorrect
> assertions above.
>

It does seem that #55231 ended up in a place where there was 
concensus that it was acceptable, but didn’t get merged for some 
reason or other.  I definitely could be wrong, but I suspect the 
issue is that when non-#:substitutable? packages are used in 
places other than package inputs, the downstream derivations don’t 
carry that information.  I believe when used as a package input, 
non-#:substitutable? packages do, in fact, poison all downstream 
derivations.  Happy to be corrected if I’m wrong here.

I think it’s reasonable to merge this after it’s rebased on 
current master, and would be willing to do that unless Maxime or 
Ludo’ raise an objection.

However, you resent a v1 patch to a bug where four versions has 
already been sent.  If you’d be willing to resend as v5 (with `git 
format-patch -v5 -2'), I can get it pushed.

Thanks,

 -- Ian

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.